ObjectivesTo examine trends in opioid prescribing in primary care, identify patient and general practice characteristics associated with long-term and stronger opioid prescribing, and identify associations with changes in opioid prescribing.DesignTrend, cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of routinely recorded patient data.Setting111 primary care practices in Leeds and Bradford, UK.ParticipantsWe observed 471 828 patient-years in which all patients represented had at least 1 opioid prescription between April 2005 and March 2012. A cross-sectional analysis included 99 847 patients prescribed opioids between April 2011 and March 2012. A longitudinal analysis included 49 065 patient-years between April 2008 and March 2012. We excluded patients with cancer or treated for substance misuse.Main outcome measuresLong-term opioid prescribing (4 or more prescriptions within 12 months), stronger opioid prescribing and stepping up to or down from stronger opioids.ResultsOpioid prescribing in the adult population almost doubled for weaker opioids over 2005–2012 and rose over sixfold for stronger opioids. There was marked variation among general practices in the odds of patients stepping up to stronger opioids compared with those not stepping up (range 0.31–3.36), unexplained by practice-level variables. Stepping up to stronger opioids was most strongly associated with being underweight (adjusted OR 3.26, 1.49 to 7.17), increasing polypharmacy (4.15, 3.26 to 5.29 for 10 or more repeat prescriptions), increasing numbers of primary care appointments (3.04, 2.48 to 3.73 for over 12 appointments in the year) and referrals to specialist pain services (5.17, 4.37 to 6.12). Compared with women under 50 years, men under 50 were less likely to step down once prescribed stronger opioids (0.53, 0.37 to 0.75).ConclusionsWhile clinicians should be alert to patients at risk of escalated opioid prescribing, much prescribing variation may be attributable to clinical behaviour. Effective strategies targeting clinicians and patients are needed to curb rising prescribing, especially of stronger opioids.

No abstract

ObjectivesThis study aimed to establish the association between timing and provision of palliative care (PC) and quality of end-of-life care indicators in a population of patients dying of cancer.SettingThis study uses linked cancer patient data from the National Cancer Registry, the electronic medical record system used in primary care (SystmOne) and the electronic medical record system used within a specialist regional cancer centre. The population resided in a single city in Northern England.ParticipantsRetrospective data from 2479 adult cancer decedents who died between January 2010 and February 2012 were registered with a primary care provider using the SystmOne electronic health record system, and cancer was certified as a cause of death, were included in the study.ResultsLinkage yielded data on 2479 cancer decedents, with 64.5% who received at least one PC event. Decedents who received PC were significantly more likely to die in a hospice (39.4% vs 14.5%, P<0.005) and less likely to die in hospital (23.3% vs 40.1%, P<0.05), and were more likely to receive an opioid (53% vs 25.2%, P<0.001). PC initiated more than 2 weeks before death was associated with avoiding a hospital death (≥2 weeks, P<0.001), more than 4 weeks before death was associated with avoiding emergency hospital admissions and increased access to an opioid (≥4 weeks, P<0.001), and more than 33 weeks before death was associated with avoiding late chemotherapy (≥33 weeks, no chemotherapy P=0.019, chemotherapy over 4 weeks P=0.007).ConclusionFor decedents with advanced cancer, access to PC and longer duration of PC were significantly associated with better end-of-life quality indicators.

BackgroundA range of policy initiatives have addressed inequalities in healthcare and health outcomes. Local pay-for-performance schemes for primary care have been advocated as means of enhancing clinical ownership of the quality agenda and better targeting local need compared with national schemes such as the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). We investigated whether professionals’ experience of a local scheme in one English National Health Service (NHS) former primary care trust (PCT) differed from that of the national QOF in relation to the goal of reducing inequalities.MethodsWe conducted retrospective semi-structured interviews with primary care professionals implementing the scheme and those involved in its development. We purposively sampled practices with varying levels of population socio-economic deprivation and achievement. Interviews explored perceptions of the scheme and indicators, likely mechanisms of influence on practice, perceived benefits and harms, and how future schemes could be improved. We used a framework approach to analysis.ResultsThirty-eight professionals from 16 general practices and six professionals involved in developing local indicators participated. Our findings cover four themes: ownership, credibility of the indicators, influences on behaviour, and exacerbated tensions. We found little evidence that the scheme engendered any distinctive sense of ownership or experiences different from the national scheme. Although the indicators and their evidence base were seldom actively questioned, doubts were expressed about their focus on health promotion given that eventual benefits relied upon patient action and availability of local resources. Whilst practices serving more affluent populations reported status and patient benefit as motivators for participating in the scheme, those serving more deprived populations highlighted financial reward. The scheme exacerbated tensions between patient and professional consultation agendas, general practitioners benefitting directly from incentives and nurses who did much of the work, and practices serving more and less affluent populations which faced different challenges in achieving targets.ConclusionsThe contentious nature of pay-for-performance was not necessarily reduced by local adaptation. Those developing future schemes should consider differential rewards and supportive resources for practices serving more deprived populations, and employing a wider range of levers to promote professional understanding and ownership of indicators.

BackgroundThere are widely recognised variations in the delivery and outcomes of healthcare but an incomplete understanding of their causes. There is a growing interest in using routinely collected ‘big data’ in the evaluation of healthcare. We developed a set of evidence-based ‘high impact’ quality indicators (QIs) for primary care and examined variations in achievement of these indicators using routinely collected data in the United Kingdom (UK).MethodsCross-sectional analysis of routinely collected, electronic primary care data from a sample of general practices in West Yorkshire, UK (n = 89). The QIs covered aspects of care (including processes and intermediate clinical outcomes) in relation to diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and ‘risky’ prescribing combinations. Regression models explored the impact of practice and patient characteristics. Clustering within practice was accounted for by including a random intercept for practice.ResultsMedian practice achievement of the QIs ranged from 43.2% (diabetes control) to 72.2% (blood pressure control in CKD). Considerable between-practice variation existed for all indicators: the difference between the highest and lowest performing practices was 26.3 percentage points for risky prescribing and 100 percentage points for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Odds ratios associated with the random effects for practices emphasised this; there was a greater than ten-fold difference in the likelihood of achieving the hypertension indicator between the lowest and highest performing practices. Patient characteristics, in particular age, gender and comorbidity, were consistently but modestly associated with indicator achievement. Statistically significant practice characteristics were identified less frequently in adjusted models.ConclusionsDespite various policy and improvement initiatives, there are enduring inappropriate variations in the delivery of evidence-based care. Much of this variation is not explained by routinely collected patient or practice variables, and is likely to be attributable to differences in clinical and organisational behaviour.